King's Cutters and Smugglers 1700-1855 eBook

After accumulating this evidence, the Committee issued
their first report on March 24, 1745, and expressed
themselves of the opinion that the high duties charged
on tea and other commodities had certainly been one
cause of smuggling. But they also added that the
exposing for sale of those boats and vessels which
had been seized from the smugglers was certainly another
potent reason, for these craft were frequently bought
back by the men; they therefore recommended that all
captured craft should be burned. Furthermore,
the Commission condemned the custom of allowing penalties
to be compounded so easily. As an instance of
this last-mentioned custom we might call attention
to three smugglers belonging to the county of Hampshire.
There is a reference to them in the Southampton Letters
under date of April 28, 1730, from which it appears
that Matthew Barton, John Gibort, and William Moadon
of Fordingbridge were under prosecution for running
goods ashore. They subsequently offered to compound
for the said offence on the following terms:
Barton to pay the sum of L35, Gibort to pay L25, and
Moadon L15. But before allowing the matter to
be settled straight away the Collector and Comptroller
at Southampton were ordered to look carefully into
the affair and to inquire what these men were generally
esteemed to be worth.

CHAPTER IV

THE SMUGGLERS’ METHODS

It was not till June of 1746 that the Committee issued
their second report, and the evidence therein contained
is even more interesting to us than any which had
hitherto been given. After the Solicitor to the
Commissioners had shown how biassed juries frequently
were towards prisoners brought up on charges connected
with smuggling, how they declined to bring in a verdict
against them even in spite of the clearest of evidence,
another official (the Surveyor of the Searchers in
the Port of London) stated that when he had received
information that there had been a run of goods in
a certain locality and had even received information
as to the road along which they would be brought,
he had been compelled to travel by night and carefully
to avoid all the beaten paths. Indeed, if people
whom they might meet on the road noticed a Custom
House officer and any soldiers together, their design
would immediately be suspected and warning would promptly
be sent to the smugglers, who would hide their goods.
He added, also, that he remembered on one occasion
that a couple of vessels landed in the Isle of Thanet
as much tea as could be loaded on the backs of two
hundred horses.

But it was when the ex-smugglers came to give their
evidence that the real secrets of the trade were unfolded.
Robert Hanning, who for years had been one of the
most distinguished members of the industry, informed
the Commission that formerly he was the principal dealer
with the smugglers when he resided at Dunkirk.
Some idea of the colossal business which he had carried
on may be gathered from his admission that he had
sold teas, brandies, and wines to be run into England
to the extent of L40,000 per annum.
And let us not forget to bear in mind that of course
this probably represented the value of the goods when
they were put on board. What they actually realised
after they were smuggled into the English market must
have been something considerable.